“undefined macro: _m4divertdiversion“. What kind of error message is that?

This is why I don’t like autotools: how is someone supposed to know where the real problem is, from this message? It is impossible to tell what is wrong from this message, unless you have written autoconf yourself.

Yes, I did something very wrong above, regarding the KDE buildsystem. I will see if someone is able to tell where the real problem was. But the rant is about the non-intuitive error message I was getting. I took days to find out what I was doing wrong.

First of all: lilo talked to me, and we friendly discussed the issue, and exchanged opinions about the event.

And, yes, I think my text had too much repercussion and I was thinking about removing the post from my blog. But I don’t like the idea of removing stuff that I already made online. I think it wouldn’t be fair with people that read this and wanted to argue with me. I would feel like a coward if I removed a text I’ve already written and published.

But just to conclude:

I agree that the guy deserved the ban

I am not against punishing people for “anti-social” behaviour on a IRC network

I am not the kind of people that thinks IRC should have “total free speech”, and people allowed to say anything they want in a channel

The only reason for my post were:

Yes, I think that the person in question wouldn’t be punished if he had offended any other non-staffer people

Yes, I think that the punishment was too much because: a total network ban wasn’t necessary IMHO; and it wouldn’t happen if the problem happened with other people (you can say “yes, that it would happen”, but I don’t believe so)

Finally the main reason for the post was: I was really disappointed with the network staffer saying many times that “this is not open to discussion”. This was even why I have posted my complaints publicly instead of discussing it with the network staffers: if he really didn’t want to discuss, I had the desire to make my complaints public.

Probably the reason I think the punishment was “too much” is related to the lack of portuguese-speaking staffers in the network. This may be one of the reasons I think that an offense wouldn’t have the same consequences if a staffer wasn’t involved: there aren’t enough portuguese-speaking staffers to guarantee this.

Okay, I will not say any word about it, anymore. It is over and I still think the freenode services are good.

Because I didn’t expect to support a team that include people that don’t know how to “fairly” use his powers.

First of all: the Freenode services are great. They have an open and explicit policy on many things, you see people working on improvements every time. They encourage “Real World” communication with groups. As fas as I see, the services are stable. And they are free. PDPC is a group that provide good free services for the community. And as a regular user of these services for many years, I think they deserved a small donation on the last year’s fundraiser.

But today I think it could be better if I had used my money on something else.

It is not because they don’t provide an useful service. They still provide an useful service. But it is because I don’t want to support behaviour that I don’t think it is fair.

I agree that the IRC network need to have a good policy on what is “desired behaviour” on the network. It is their right, they run the network, they spend their time maintaining it. The problem is when I see an “unfair” behaviour, and something that represents the network simply say that “it is not open to discussion”.

Today on a channel that I don’t use to join (but I used to join some time ago), somebody simply offended a network staffer:

Okay. It was a personal offense, and I think he really deserves some “punishment” for this “anti-social behaviour”. My question is: this was a personal offense to a network staffer. If somebody called me a retard, he would get a complete ban from the network, too? Anybody who offends anybody in the network will be completely banned, as it happened in this case? I don’t believe so. Then the given network staffer himself confirms what I’ve suspected:

04/02/2006 13:08:27 UdontKnow topeira: I would say: if you don't know what you are
dealing with, don't make improper accusations

Well, I think it is a way to say “you must know who you are dealing with”. Or, in other words I understand this comment as “this is what happens to you when you offend a network staffer”.

Also, I guess the problem would be easily solved with a simple kick/ban from the channel. It would be simpler and with less harm. But it looked like that a network staffer wouldn’t use these “simple” soutions, if they can take stronger measures.

I don’t think this behaviour is fair. It isn’t unfair because the people that offended the staffer didn’t deserved a punishment. But because you simply can’t k-line everybody who offends someone in the network. It is pratically impossible. People won’t go to network staffers everytime someone offends someone. So we necessarily will end having an “unfair” policy: when a problem happens between someone and a network staffer, the consequences will be stronger because they can.

Obviously many people started to question the right the network staffer had to set this k-line. What happened? He said that “this is not open to discussion”. Simply this. So, people don’t have the right to discuss the actions of the network staffers.

It is OK: they have the right to define whatever policy they what. They run the network. The network is not a “right everybody has”, but simply a service provided by them. I understand this completely.

The problem is that I don’t want to support such behaviour. If they are supported by donations, I expect them to listen better to what people think, instead of taking some actions and saying “it is not open to discussion”. And, if the policy of the network is supposed to include “listen to our users”, I think PDPC should take a closer look to the behaviour of their staff team regarding their reaction and “openness to discussion” with the users of the network.

Today we (Kátia and me) start our vacations. We will be back on 6 January 2006.

Probably I won’t have access to e-mail, but I will try to check it during the trip. I hope I will have (cheap) GPRS available while on roaming, then I will be able to check my mail on mutt via ssh using PuTTY from my mobile phone.

On a previous story the guy told a story of someone accessing a URL that would hose a Windows machine, if accessed using Internet Explorer and Windows. They have clearly warned people about it:

“NEVER under any circumstance visit this url using Internet Explorer and Windows … you have been warned.”

But, wonder, there were lots of people that actually accessed it! Read the complete story and the comments he got, if you want some fun. Some examples:

11/25/05 “…and I hold you personally responsible for the damage you inflicted upon my computer. I am turning this over to my attorney in the morning. When he is done with you and your website, you will never hack another computer again…”

11/26/05 “…and how much did Linux pay you to infect our computers? I hope it was alot because when my lawyer is finished, you will be living in a cardboard box…”